Allegations of forgery must be substantiated by due process; denying retirement benefits without proper enquiry is unjustified, especially posthumously.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Ms. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, learned Advocate for the State.

2. Before narrating the facts of the case, it would be worth mentioning that during the pendency of the writ petition the sole petitioner died on 11.04.2024 leaving behind her legal heirs, whose names were arrayed in the cause title of the writ petition pursuant to the order of this Court dated 27.08.2024, passed on interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 1 of 2024. For convenient, the original petitioner shall be referred petitioner herein.

3. The petitioner was duly appointed on the post of ANM on 30.05.1986 and posted at Primary Health Centre, Chenari, District Rohtas. After serving for about 34 years, the petitioner superannuated on 30.04.2020 from the office of the Primary Health Centre, Shiv Nagar, Sasaram. Notwithstanding, her superannuation in the year 2020, when she has not been allowed her post retiral benefits, she approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondents to extend all the retiral benefits and other dues, including the arrears of salary for few months.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners, after taking this Court through various averments and the Annexures, has submitted that while the petitioner was discharging her duty as ANM, in the meanwhile, in the year 1988, a complaint was filed against the petitioner suspecting her matriculation certificate to be fake and fabricated leading to institution of Chenari P.S. Case No. 68 of 1988 (GR Case No. 1755/1988), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 467, 468 and 479 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . In the premise of the allegation levelled in the complaint, the matter was verified through the Bihar School Examination Board (for short “the Board”)at the level of the Joint Secretary (Vigilance). Fortifying the genuineness of the certificate, a report was submitted and the same has been found to be genuine. In the meantime, in the judicial proceeding, the learned jurisdictional court, on being found no evidence collected during the course of investigation, discharged the petitioner vide order dated 20.02.1991. The petitioner has further been allowed to resume her duty by an order issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer as contained in Memo No. 2049 dated 03.08.1991 and since then the petitioner had been discharging her duty on the post of ANM uninterruptedly and she was allowed to superannuate unconditionally without there being any objection on 30.04.2020.

5. Ms. Vagisha, learned Advocate for the petitioner strenuously argued that admittedly at no point of time the petitioner was put to any departmental proceeding, much less any enquiry on being satisfied with the report of the Joint Secretary (Vigilance) of the Board fortifying the genuineness of the matriculation certificate of the petitioner, however, all of a sudden, after about 29-30 years, on a complaint made by one Dharmendra Kumar Singh, who had been keeping grudge against the petitioner, a fresh report was called for by the Board. On receipt of the adverse report, the petitioner was put to show cause notice which was duly answered and in the meantime the petitioner superannuated on 30.04.2020. Based upon the subsequent report, suggesting the matriculation certificate of the petitioner to be fake and fabricated one, the services of the petitioner